Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Adds Two New Board Members for a Total of 0% Female Board Members

***

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a parachurch organization aimed to promote complementary differences between men and women, yet only men run their board under President Owen Strachan.

 

The other day, my blogger friend, Tim Fall, and Gail Wallace, co-founder of The Junia Project, were tweeting about this:

 

Owen Strachan, CBMW, Council for Biblical Manhood Womanhood, 100% Male Board, gailwallace55- http---t.co-75I6nJ1T1F Wow. ...

 

 

 

Here is the mission statement for Council for Biblical Manhood and Woman (CBMW). CBMW exists to:

The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.

The CBMW mission statement elaborates on the following points and you can see how important they feel these complementary differences are:

1. The authority of Scripture is at stake.

2. The health of the home is at stake.

3. The health of the church is at stake.

4. Our worship is at stake.

5. Bible translations are at stake.

6. The advance of the gospel is at stake.

It’s important to note that CBMW is a parachurch organization. Evidently, CBMW feels it their obligation to supplement what we get from our churches and our pastors with their “important” information. Me thinks they are acting in fear. Is God not big enough to be working in local churches through the lives of His Saints without this organization? Is God not big enough to speak His words through people sitting in the pews of the local church and church leaders? Perhaps this group thinks not or we would not be inundated through social media, blogs, conferences with their material.

But back to the topic at hand. A number of us joined the Twitter conversation about the 100% male Board at CBMW. We were wondering why there were no ladies on the CBMW board. A lively discussion ensued. In the conversation there was some back and forth between a gentlemen who challenged some of us about CBMW’s motives. I tweeted that there was no way CBMW would have a woman on their board because of their articles I’ve read about roles of women, and certainly from the original CBMW co-founder, John Piper, who has spoken about women in leadership roles in the civilian world.

During that Twitter conversation, I was reminded of a personal conversation I had with the director of a non-profit board on which I’m currently serving (non-religious board). I had never been on any boards before and he explained to me that the board of his particular non-profit makes all the executive decisions, including whether or not to fire him. So, in the context of CBMW (and if all boards work in similar capacities), this means that a woman could in fact initiate the process to fire a man. She would be in essence his authority in a hierarchal role. I know that does not jive with the teachings/articles I’ve seen from CBMW and so this was the basis of some of my arguments. To settle the issue, I decided to tweet Owen Strachan, the president of CBMW, directly:

Tim, who was also involved in the conversation, also tweeted directly to the source to get clarification:

 

I haven’t yet received a response to my tweet from Mr. Strachan (and didn’t really expect to get one over the holiday weekend), so I searched the CBMW site to see if there was anything published on the topic. Sure enough I found something, and it is specifically related to parachurch organizations.  As I said earlier, CBMW is a parachurch organization. Take a look:
(Source)
CBMW Women in Ministry  Practical Application of Biblical Teaching   CBMW   The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

 

I have to admit, I was delightfully surprised to read this. So, according to CBMW, women can serve “alongside men as members of a board of directors!”  Now again, keep in mind, this is CBMW’s interpretation of what they believe a woman’s role can include (and that opens up that same can of worms about CBMW usurping pastoral role in the local church body and a pastor’s interpretation of biblical roles), but whoa – – ladies, doncha just want to line up and inquire about a position on the Board of directors at CBMW?

 

Today at SSB, we’re going to do something a little different. We’re going to work on math, specifically percents. Percents are your friends, people. Do not click the little “x” at the top of your screen.  Percents won’t kill you. This will be easy. We’re going to do it in story problem form, too. You can do this!

Here we go: as of right now, 100% of the current CBMW board members are men.

Let me break that down for ya. That  means 100% of the board are men and  0%, that would be a big fat ZERO percent, are female.  100% of the men get to tell 100% of women about their biblical roles. 0% of women get to tell 0% men about their biblical roles.
It makes one wonder if perhaps CBMW’s guidelines for parachurch oranizations and women as members of boards only applies to other parachurch organizations, and not specifically, CBMW.

 Ya think?

hmmm…    Yea, this seems like a brave new movement to me (this is CBMW’s Twitter banner).

 

 

CBMW Board Screen Shot 2014-07-04 at 7.32.55 AM

 

But take a look at this – – CBMW recently added two new board members . . . and those two new board members are, no surprise, 100% male, which of course means 0% female.

I think I am going to break mold and allow a man to speak for me. Gomer Pyle, take it away:

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s the next percentage problem. Please check my math:

Two 100% brand new board members + the 7 current 100% male board members = Nine 100% male board members (and zero percent, 0% female members).

Here are three tweets in a row from Mr. Strachan. He seems to really appreciate women, doesn’t he?

 

CBMW Owen Strachan  ostrachan  on Twitter

 

Notice here, we have FIVE women in the above tweet/picture.  

Ok, for your math extra credit, please figure out what percentage of women represented their “spelling capabilities and the organization” in the above picture.

Isn’t that cute? Women were allowed to spell out CBMW, but when it comes to running the organization alongside men in the CBMW organization, we do not see any representation of women on the board.

ZERO % women

Women represent 0% of the voices at the CBMW board. Maybe the men don’t want women to interpret their biblical roles?

I do want to point out that there are 26 members on the CBMW council, 6 of whom are female. I did my math and that means there are 77% male.

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave  nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  Galations 3:28 ESV

 

 

 

 

 

 

277 comments on “Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Adds Two New Board Members for a Total of 0% Female Board Members

  1. @ Buck T.
    You also mentioned TWW (The Wartburg Watch) blog in your post. I think you’re angry at the people there, so you come over here to blow off steam. That is my impression.

    There is some cross-over, in that some of the people who post here sometimes post over there. That is true.

    I pretty much enjoy TWW, and there are some fine people over there, but – in case you have not paid attention, I don’t always agree with all the folks over there. Many of them are socially and politically very left wing in outlook, and I am not. I am right wing.

    I have to duck out of some threads at TWW because the general consensus on some topics leads to a ganging up mentality there…

    For example, I’m okay with YEC, but they mock YEC pretty regularly there.

    I don’t have a huge problem with Christian bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings – neither of my stances on those topics (YEC and homosexuality) go over well there. I get shouted down by several people at a time on such threads if I speak up. It’s usually myself and maybe one or two others against five to ten other people.

    I was apparently placed on permanent moderated status at TWW, shortly after I butted heads with a few people about a week or two ago who insist that SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) does not have a left wing agenda, and I said, oh yes. they most certainly do (and yes, they do), and you cannot trust all information that comes out of SPLC.

    So I find it funny that you are kind of lumping me in with everyone else, when I have gotten into some pointed exchanges on some of these topics.

    I do think the folks at TWW (and here on this blog) are correct that gender complementarianism is bogus, that it’s a cover for Christian males to consolidate power and authority in churches, and is nothing but sexism with biblical jargon glossed over it.

    But on other topics, I don’t see eye to eye with all the people who post over there. I’m more right wing, and many of the regular posters there strike me as being very liberal or progressive (left wingers) on topics such as homosexuality.

    Like

  2. (Part 1)
    BT said,

    Wartburg Watch, and this site, is a complaint that airs Christian dirty laundry and hosts of grievances, without and real desire for a resolution procedure with management. All you want is the grievances…otherwise who would come here.
    Yes, there are pastors that fail and there is failure in every business and at all levels of leadership. We are all sinners.
    What you are doing for many eyes to see, is satan’s work of tearing down the church where eventually people don’t trust the church

    Your view is in opposition to the Bible, in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5, which tells Christians to police other Christians and hold other Christians accountable.

    Jesus Christ (and the apostle Paul) taught there would be false converts and wolves who pose as sheep to defraud the body of Christ and to teach false doctrine, and Jesus and Paul said Christians should be on the look out for them and expose them, not keep mum about them.

    Secondly, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

    People get hurt and abused by Christians, preachers, and churches, and then they seek out sites such as this one.

    Most of the folks I have seen who visit this site (and TWW) do not come across these sites and then turn “anti church” as a result.

    It’s the other way around: visitors to sites like this are already “anti church” in sentiment because they have been mistreated at prior churches they have attended, and then they go online to seek out validation and consolation from others who have endured the same abuse.

    I have zero sympathy for churches, Christians or preachers who sexually or spiritually abuse people, and/or who cover up said abuse.

    That you are siding with that and excusing it (and what, under the guise of unity or defending the church’s reputation?) is really awful.

    BT said,

    This site is tearing down the church.

    No, abusers are tearing down the church.

    So too are the legalists or the antinomians, or the sexist, greedy, rude jerks, such as men who call themselves preachers (eg, Mark Driscoll). Those guys are giving Christianity a black eye, not the blogs that point it out.

    I was already antagonistic towards Christians, going to church, and the faith itself before visiting this site and TWW. One of the slender threads that is keeping me holding on to the Christian faith at all are seeing bloggers, such as the TWW ladies or Julie Anne here, who report on the abuse.

    I think reporting on the abuse is in a way a solution against it. Churces are being pressured to act now and protect people. I think it was easier for preachers to be abusive before the advent of the internet.

    Like

  3. (part 2)

    BT said,

    There is a latent message underlying all your “egalitarian speak”, and it is the message that men are out and women need to be put in charge. Women want authority. They want the authority and are completely motivated by it. Women “can do it better” by demonstrating all the failures of “The Patriarchy”, but don’t look in our closet.

    Nope. That is mis-stating the egalitarian position and their motivation.

    I get the feeling you have never actually read Christian gender egalitarian sites, or books or blogs, such as CBE ( “Christians for Biblical Equality”). You have a very skewed understanding of egalitarians and what they believe.

    Jesus said that his followers should not lord authority over one another.

    However, gender complementarian teachings tell men that they should and ought to exercise authority over women and bar women from using their God given talents at teaching, preaching, and leading.

    And women in fact are prohibited from authority, leadership, or teaching positions in many churches today – only MEN are permitted to work as preachers or teachers in Southern Baptist churches, Reformed, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches. That is a fact.

    Egalitarians are simply asking for equal space at the table, and to be allowed to practice their gifts, and to stop the “men should always be in power over women” shtick.

    You’re very dishonest, BT. You really go out of your way to intentionally misconstrue other people’s views but get all hypocritical at being branded an MRA. You don”t like the MRA label for yourself but don’t hesitate to label others as “radfems” or as wanting all authority.

    A parallel to this would be like if most churches taught that black people should not be allowed to be teachers, leaders, or preachers, only whites should hold those roles.

    And you would come on to this blog screaming about how black Christians wanting to be allowed also to serve as leaders and teachers along with white people is tantamount to black people wanting all authority or being “rad-black-powerists” who have been influenced by secular culture.
    Way to twist things around there, BT.

    God did not build CBMW. CBMW is apparently a propaganda tool by Christian males who are insecure, want to get donations form folks, and they – males – want to say in total control. CBMW is about excluding women.

    Gender complementarianism has not been informed by the Bible but by secular culture, especially 1950s American secular culture.

    BT said,
    “the same way young men are too fearful to go to University”

    Citation for that (links to some credible articles), please? I’ve yet to see any article that says men are “fearful” to attend University.

    I do, however, see articles that women are out-performing men at Uni and choosing to attend more so than males.

    A few gains by women in some areas of life does not mean that women have all of life hunky-dory, however, as there are still roadblocks against women by men in society.

    Most articles I’ve seen on these issues about university attendance and performance say that many young males are content to sit at home on Mom’s sofa playing X-box video games all day.

    That is their choice; women are not forcing them to do that. (I’d actually say that is most likely due to “helicopter parenting.”) Sour grapes on your part – it’s not a feminist plot to take over the world.

    Like

  4. Julie Anne,
    I inserted a link to a Spurgeon sermon. I noticed he mentioned at Oxford, 6 men that were kicked out for being too Godly, who then changed everything at the time. 6 men…..that’s quite a board of men.
    I don’t know all the men on the CBMW board and I am not a member of CBMW so I do not speak for them. I am familiar with some of the stuff of one of the newest board members over the last year in his new role. Some good…some not so good.

    Leadership is tough and although from the outside I raise an eyebrow at some of his decisions, I can tell you being in a position of authority what is seen from the outside is often not the real story. I have known a lot went into decisions I’ve been involved in that the community did not know, could not know, yet the University community demanded “transparency”, but the University can not share or breach legal confidentiality for all involved. And I’m not talking about non disclosure statements. Some things people just don’t have the right to know and some things are just plain private, or law. Sometimes transparency is going to cause those close to the situation a lot of pain…or a lot more pain because of the disclosure than they are already experiencing, only to find themselves the talk of blog chopping them to pieces. Do you not think that perhaps comments to Owen Strachen, that he is drunk, as is written above, is not hurtful ? C’mon.
    Historically men have politically held positions of authority yet have made many decisions to benefit women, to the detriment of men. The family court system is completely lopsided against men, and the decisions to do that were made by: Men.
    Do you really think, even though the Board is all male, that there is no input from Christian women of what biblical womanhood should look like. Do you really think any of the wives of these men haven’t had something to say about this ?
    Why is everything that is lopsided male, total injustice for the simple fact there are no women. I work in HR. Dr. Helen Smith mentions in her book that HR is something like 93 % female. Where is the outrage. I have been afraid to open my mouth due to hostile environments to my own employment for the simple fact I am totally outnumbered, and it is laughed off that if you did, it would be a CLM. Career liming move.
    One of the bloggers above mentioned the lopsided numbers of women in University compared to men and said it with such pride. It’s almost 65-35 and growing. In social services in Canada it is one male employee in 10 . Where is the outrage for such lopsidedness. I have read job descriptions posted on job boards that write in the job description state: the applicant must agree and align with the feminist mindset. Can you imagine a job description that said the applicant must agree and line up with the Patriarchy ?
    Or how about complaint under Title IX that disclose the names of the accused, but not the accuser. Where is the demand for “transparency” to name the accuser. There are laws to these things.
    How about this all female board and their decision regarding a 5 year old boy.
    http://womenformen.org/2014/07/03/the-naturally-all-female-board-that-accused-a-5-year-old-boy-of-sexual-misconduct

    The church has long been held as male headship. Why are you so surprised that the board is men. Maybe women don’t even want to get on the board because they will be slaughtered by other women, even if the bylaws lets them be board members.
    If I was a woman, I don’t think for the safety of my family I would put myself at that risk by getting on the board.
    Women who want to be housewives are eviscerated for being such by feminism. Could it be women don’t want to join the board, therefore sitting ducks to the hostility and bullying of: other women. The same women who are complaining there is no female representation, who was a brave enough woman to do so, and then be chopped to pieces like you do to Nancy Leigh DeMoss, for joining the board.
    Think you are sticking up for sisters by getting on the board, only to be betrayed by the sisterhood for joining the Board.
    It’s a lose lose for the woman.

    Like

  5. BT said,

    “Then the instructor would ask the room their thoughts.
    In one video a man was having a discussion with an employee.
    One of the high powered women in the room said “he needs to grow some b_ _ _ s.”

    But men talk that way to other men a lot, especially in movies and TV shows. Does it bother you when men talk to and about other men in that way?

    You keep giving us anecdotes, isolated, very specific incidents of how you were, in your view, personally mistreated by some woman at your job, or how your friend Joe was molested by a woman when he was three years old.

    Nobody disputes that some women can be rotten to males sometimes, but overall, in a systematic sense, men make all the rules in American culture, the hold all the cards. American culture favors males.

    Most evangelical, Reformed, and Baptist Churches don’t permit women to work as preachers, teachers, or leaders. All those roles are given to MEN.

    Like

  6. BT said,
    Women who want to be housewives are eviscerated for being such by feminism.

    That is true. I have been on secular feminist blogs where the secular feminists “bad mouth” and mock women who are stay at home wife and mothers.
    HOWEVER – many Christians today are equally bad but in the reverse direction, in that gender complementarian Christians are anti-Single Woman, and anti- Childless woman.

    Despite the Bible says that God is fine with adults being childless and single, many Southern Baptist, Reformed, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches speak disrespectfully about adult singleness (by both genders, they are anti single males *AND* anti single females).

    Many churches have turned marriage and parenthood into idols.

    Women who by choice or circumstance (like me) are still single and childless in their 30s, 40s, and older get either IGNORED or SHAMED by Christians – more so than Christian males who are still single and childless in their 40s.

    We ladies get hit ten times harder to be mommies than men do to be fathers. Women are constantly barraged with “Why don’t you have any babies” or “when are you going to have a baby” questions. Men RARELY get slammed with the “baby” questions as women do.

    Single women are repeatedly told in Christian material that our most or only godly role in life is to marry and have a baby.

    Those of us who never marry and/or who never have a kid are treated like dirt in evangelical Christianity.

    So, while some secular feminists do indeed speak disrespectfully against motherhood and marriage, many conservative Christians have put marriage and motherhood on a pedestal that they bow down to and worship.

    One result is that women who are childless, childfree, infertile, divorced, widowed, or never-married are insulted or marginalized by conservative Christians.

    Like

  7. BT said,

    Women who want to be housewives are eviscerated for being such by feminism. Could it be women don’t want to join the board, therefore sitting ducks to the hostility and bullying of: other women. The same women who are complaining there is no female representation, who was a brave enough woman to do so, and then be chopped to pieces like you do to Nancy Leigh DeMoss, for joining the board.

    As I believe I pointed out above about this:

    I said above that even if CBMW had a female – a token female representative on their council – it wouldn’t amount to anything.

    Why?

    Because in their theology (gender complementarian), a lone man’s view counts even more than ten women’s views put together.

    Secondly, a woman who is a gender complementarian is obviously most of the time going to agree with everything the male members say. How is she not? She’s going to be pressured in to agreeing with the “party position,” which is (unbiblical) that males should have authority over females.

    A female on a CBMW board is just a mouth piece, a show piece to make it appear as though women are included, when in reality, they have no real power or input. That is my opinion.

    Re: sisterhood.

    By the way, one falsehood of secular feminists that they hold to (and you appear to hold to it as well, the irony!) is that all women are supposed to agree with and support all other women all the time, in spite of disagreements, on every topic under the sun.

    I think I consider myself an individual, a human being, first and foremost, before I consider myself a woman, or before thinking of myself in terms of gender.

    Ergo, when I see moronic, horrible, or weird opinions or remarks by secular feminists on issues (and sometimes, secular feminists do indeed hold some very wrong or wonky views), I do not feel inclined to agree with them just because I am a woman.

    Like

  8. Miss Daisy,

    I know all the arguments. I have read the sites. I met a lady a little while ago and thought finally, a good one. I purposely mentioned headship on the phone to see the response. We met for supper, and she brought out a book written by her mentor: Gender or Giftedness. “God put me in your life to convert you”, she said. Insisted I read it.
    I did. 54…never been married. Where are the men, she said. I’ve never been snatched up.
    She had an MDIV she did 20 something years ago. Did all her essays with the Egalitarian agenda.
    Told me she felt sorry I was taking such a hard line on Complimentarianism and that I was to blame for the relationship not going forward when I told her I was ending it. I told her she could lay her Egalitarian agenda down, but that she was equally (equality) being just as strong in her position as I was in mine. I left it at that. I did not try to convert her as I realized she has been writing on this for 20 something years. She let a relationship die even though she really wanted to continue dating me. She’s 54….never married….desperate for a man….and back looking.
    As much as women want to tell a man how he should think, we still get to choose who we ask to marry. I love women. I loved the woman from my original post here very much and would lay my life down for her, have done so and she knows it. But she didn’t want love. She wanted to continue hating, and fearing men. Just like she’s been taught.

    Like

  9. Nobody disputes that some women can be rotten to males sometimes, but overall, in a systematic sense, men make all the rules in American culture, the hold all the cards. American culture favors males.

    Miss Daisy. You have to be kidding me. Did you watch or read anything in the public forum when the Patriarch of Duck Dynasty spoke out in December.
    Patriarchy is dead. You are singing I’m Henry the 8th I am, 2nd verse, just like the first when someone wrote a 2nd verse eons ago. Egalitarianism, LGBTQ and those that control the media, who are in agreement with that agenda, is politically correct and in.

    Like

  10. One result is that women who are childless, childfree, infertile, divorced, widowed, or never-married are insulted or marginalized by conservative Christians.

    I am divorced. See my original post about a single woman, never married, would never ever get involved with me because I was a dirty divorced person.

    Like

  11. @ Buck.

    I know all the arguments. I have read the sites. I met a lady a little while ago and thought finally, a good one. I purposely mentioned headship on the phone to see the response. We met for supper, and she brought out a book written by her mentor: Gender or Giftedness. “God put me in your life to convert you”, she said. Insisted I read it.

    … I did. 54…never been married. Where are the men, she said. I’ve never been snatched up. She had an MDIV she did 20 something years ago. Did all her essays with the Egalitarian agenda.

    You seem to be suggesting that her egalitarianism is what was keeping her single?

    Nope. Not buying it.

    I was a gender complementarian up to my mid or late 30s, had old fashions morals, and I was still single.

    Being a gender comp woman does not guarantee a woman a spouse.

    Men such as yourself frequently CLAIM to want a gender comp woman, but you do not date them.

    (I now realize when men such as you say they want a gender comp woman, you don’t want an equal partner to share life with, what you mean is that you want a subordinate doormat to take orders from you.)

    I read a book by Christians, and another by a secular author. One was a therapist, one was a lay expert at bullying.

    The therapist said in all her years (20 or more) of treating troubled marriages, the only men who ever trotted out the “wife submit to the man” thing from Ephesians were the emotionally or physically abusive husbands.

    I believe Lundy Bancroft (expert at abusive husbands, he counsels them) said in his book on the topic of domestic violence that religious clients of his – men who abuse their wives – also typically hide behind Bible verse that talk about a wife submitting to their husbands.

    The fact that you would bring “headship” up on a date with a woman tells me you are quite possibly selfish, controlling, or abusive.

    That a man would be so obsessed with the issue of who is in “charge” or in “authority” or who gets “final say so” in a relationship is a red flag of danger that the man is abusive and/or highly selfish.

    Jesus said you are not to be concerned with authority and lording authority over others. Your “headship” to a woman means you serve her, as Christ served the church.

    Like

  12. I have to duck out of some threads at TWW because the general consensus on some topics leads to a ganging up mentality there…

    Yah…here too.

    Like

  13. Buck said,
    “Miss Daisy. You have to be kidding me. Did you watch or read anything in the public forum when the Patriarch of Duck Dynasty spoke out in December.”
    ——————————————-
    I do not believe that had anything to do with partriarchy vs. feminism.

    If that was the incident the media went crazy about where Duck Dynasty guy spoke out against homosexuality (among other behaviors the Bible deems sin), that was a case of liberal Americans ticked off hearing a conservative Christian talk about biblical values, it was not about culture stripping power away from a man.

    Mr. Duck man was not being beat up on for being a man, but for holding to and voicing conservative Christian views.

    Bible values and patriarchy are not the same topic. You are mixing apples and oranges.

    I don think Duck man is a bit sexist and patriarchal though, because in other videos, he has made terribly sexist, perverted comments that grown men should marry 16 yer old girls.

    Like

  14. Buck, I feel for ya, buddy. You need help. Honestly. Your attitude is your problem. I’m writing in short sentences so you’ll be able to follow. Here’s a few pointers:

    1. Learn to spell. (especially your favourite word on here)

    2. Learn to write coherent sentences.

    3. Lose your hate-on for women. (you’ve obviously got love confused . .. ?)

    Sincerely,

    a radical feminist

    Like

  15. Buck – – What we have going on here is people mirroring back the attitudes/biases that they see you displaying. Sadly, you are seeing the responses, but instead of looking at yourself and making correction, you blameshift – it’s everybody else’s problem. When so many people are telling you the same thing (both here and TWW), perhaps it’s time to take a closer looks, step back and re-read your comments and see what people are talking about. Group feedback is a great way to get a reality check into how our behavior affects people. It’s a great tool if you want to accept it and use it.

    Like

  16. “Wartburg Watch, and this site, is a complaint that airs Christian dirty laundry and hosts of grievances, without and real desire for a resolution procedure with management.

    Since you stated this in such a matter of fact manner, could you prove this please?
    (And, btw, still waiting for an answer to the Nancy Leigh DeMoss is a wonderful, godly woman question I have as to how, for a fact, you can possibly know that?

    “All you want is the grievances…otherwise who would come here.”

    Please prove that all the readers here want are the “grievances.”

    “What you are doing for many eyes to see, is satan’s work of tearing down the church where eventually people don’t trust the church, don’t trust pastors and there’s a sexual abuser in every pulpit, and the secular world gets to point at the church and say even those within are jaded.”

    “…the church…” Tearing down what church? The churches that are spiritually abusive? Good,,,tear them down. I support that.

    “…people don’t trust the church…” ? What on earth are you talking about? A building? A denomination? How does one trust the church? For what?

    “…don’t trust pastors…” Trust is earned. If a pastor is not willing to be transparent, why should anyone trust him?

    “This site is tearing down the church. Like proverbs 14.1. A wise woman builds her house, but a foolish one tears it down with her own hands.”

    Julie Anne…I bet you had no idea this blog had such power.

    If you felt TWW and SSB are tools of satan doing satan’s work, why didn’t you reveal that in your first comment here? What do you hope to accomplish at such God-forsaken blogs?

    Like

  17. Buck said:
    “Chipping away and tearing down the church, and posting every failure of pastors, that are men, and then blaming complimentarianism, which you view as Patriarchy, Patriarchy, on the result of sexual abuse.”

    Wrong. It’s called pruning, getting rid of the bad apples, removing the yeast, etc.

    Those are righteous actions, to call out and JUDGE the pastors who preach false doctrines, and I don’t care who gets upset at being called out. On judgment day, Jesus has the last word.

    If it takes a man to save people, the God is out of the salvation business. No one NEEDS a pastor, or a preacher. Case in point…The Bereans. All they needed was scripture, in order to make sure that what they were being told was true, or false. They had a mind of their own. They decided. Scripture is our food, it is our bread. Our gathering together on Sunday has nothing to do with elders, deacons, pastors or preachers micromanaging the lives of a married couple. Just READ the scripture. Discipleship is mentoring, not ordering. It isn’t about making sure that all married couples live their lives according to how YOU think they should. Let them decide.

    I am a man, and I bash the men who control women, thinking that somehow that this is what the Bible tells them to do.

    Oh, and my daughter is in the military. I used to be in the military. I think that women should be able to do anything that they want, just like men.

    And, I notice that you do a lot of women blaming, all the while stating the we on this blog do a lot of men bashing. You failed to blame the man that was with the woman. Why? You only blamed the woman. Why?

    There is major misnomers in the interpretations of what Paul was discussing about wives.

    Lastly, I’m quite sure that you are oh, so hot on the word “obedience”, well, under the New Test, the word “obedience” takes on a different connotation.

    In the New Test, we are to be obedient to the law of faith, not the law of Moses. Under the law of faith, there is only one commandment, and that is to love thy neighbor as yourself. So why all the crazy teachings about men roles and women roles, when Paul states that in Christ there is no men or women? We are all one. What sex is left after that? Transgender? Hmmmm.

    Also,
    Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)
    Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    Who has rule over me? What is it meant to submit to this person that has rule over me?

    When I was a kid, the old saying was, Respect your ELDERS. Why? Who are my ELDERS? The saying had nothing to do with church. Just those who were OLDER than me. But why do I need to respect those who are older than me?

    Because they have LIVED LIFE. That is the ONLY reason. That means that they are WISE. Elders give WISE ADVICE, called WISDOM. They do not order anyone around, or micromanage their lives.

    Obeying a person that you have respect for is not due to a position that they hold, but it is because they have lived life.

    Lordship is against the rules, according to Jesus. I’ve heard it said that the leaders are aware of that, so they call themselves “servant leaders”. Really? Does that mean that the rest of us in the congregation are “leader servants”?

    What I am trying to get at, is nothing more than what the tea-party people want. Get the government out of our business. Get the church out of our business. Let people live their lives based on their own conscience, based on how they read scripture. Remember the Declaration of Independence?

    Ed

    Like

  18. Seems to me all these men wanting to impose all these roles on women are overlooking what Jesus had to say about doing to others as they would want done to themselves.

    Like

  19. Buck, what was your father like? How did he treat your mother? Just trying to figure out where you’re coming from.

    Like

  20. Carmen, one possibility is that misogynistic men, having a repressed recognition that women are endowed with greater glory than men, have fallen into a vindictive, retaliatory mindset–for which they invent biblical justification.

    Like

  21. Julie Anne,

    I am on a blog site that is totally egalitarian. What is being mirrored back is Egalitarian thought. Nothing more than that and I go in with open eyes.
    Nobody on this site is going to agree with complimentarian thought, or anyone who backs up CBMW. That is a given.
    If you Julie Anne, were to go over to blog on CBWM, what would be mirrored back to you is Complimentarian thought, and you would feel and sense the site is not in agreement with you.
    Because the people there are like minded. You have removed yourself far from them, but blog away from a distance.

    As far as this line in your blog and brought up again, just above: So why all the crazy teachings about men roles and women roles, when Paul states that in Christ there is no men or women? We are all one. What sex is left after that?

    That line is the golden idol of Egalitarianism and taken totally out of context of what Paul is talking about. How Egalitarian thought thinks it can stand on this line I do not know but it seems to have bought enough into that thought who like it as it works for them.
    How about this one, while twisting scripture out of context. Would be quite the stand alone piece of scripture:
    Revelation 14
    These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

    Hmm. I could have a lot of fun twisting that one out of context to my purposes now, couldn’t I. Look look look. Having relations with any woman is defilement.

    Like

  22. Under the law of faith, there is only one commandment, and that is to love thy neighbor as yourself.

    There are 3 commandments. Love God. Love your neighbour. Love each other.

    Those are righteous actions, to call out and JUDGE the pastors who preach false doctrines, and I don’t care who gets upset at being called out. On judgment day, Jesus has the last word.

    Jesus will have the last word. Your final destination is a Patriarchy. Take your complaints up about his lop sided Board of Men

    Like

  23. Buck said:
    “That line is the golden idol of Egalitarianism and taken totally out of context of what Paul is talking about. ”

    Yep…that’s the default comp talk, that it’s taken out of context. Not buying what you are selling.

    Revelation 14 is discussing Jewish people, not anyone else but Jewish people. I’ve had this debate many a times before, as I am pre-trib, which leaves the Jewish people, 144000 of them behind, and they get raptured later, prior to Armageddon, as Armageddon is chapter 16, and where are these virgins in chapter 14?

    Not sure what your point is in regards to Rev 14. There is ONLY ONE way for a man to defile himself with a woman, and that is to fornicate.

    However, you failed to respond to anything that I stated. Why? Your default “out of context” line doesn’t work for me. Why? Because I say the same thing to you in regards to your take on the same verse about no male or female. Your take is out of context. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And your side states that this is a salvation issue, which forces you to believe your side of it out of FEAR of MAN. YOUR salvation is at stake. Ours is already secure, out of FREEDOM in Christ.

    Ed

    Like

  24. Buck,

    You state that there are three commandments? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Love your neighbor as yourself is the ROYAL LAW, and that is the ONLY law.

    We SHOW that we love God BY OUR DEED OF LOVING our neighbor as ourselves. That is in the book of 1 John.

    Loving people is the SAME AS “love thy neighbor as yourself”.

    You are funny, dude!

    Ed

    Like

  25. Julie,

    If you were to go over to blog at CBMW, and write your material as you have here, this would be the response they would give to you there:
    Julie – – What we have going on here is people mirroring back the attitudes/biases that they see you displaying. Sadly, you are seeing the responses, but instead of looking at yourself and making correction, you blameshift – it’s everybody else’s problem. When so many people are telling you the same thing ), perhaps it’s time to take a closer looks, step back and re-read your comments and see what people are talking about. Group feedback is a great way to get a reality check into how our behavior affects people. It’s a great tool if you want to accept it and use it.

    You would receive the same argument you just provided. Group feedback from a bunch of Complimentarians would let you see the light of the error of your view.
    Like the message you are trying to convey- why can’t you just agree on Egalitarianism from our critique of you.
    Why can’t you just agree with Complimentarianism, which lines up with scripture which egalitarianism does not.

    At no point have I ever said Complimentarianism is Lording it over anybody, or ruling over a wife, or making her submit to all my way and the highway.
    That is NOT complimentarianism. That is again, twisting what complimentarianism stands for.
    The very fact alone that the comp message is being twisted by egalitarian thougth, let alone the scriptures being twisted is reason alone not to line up with it.

    Like

  26. Julie Ann,

    Isn’t CBMW one of the places they don’t allow you to post comments? I’m thinking one of the proofs of the correctness of your views is that they quite easily survive the attacks of people like Buck. One of the proofs of the weakness of the views of CBMW and its ilk is that they have to censor you. If they cannot control the narrative their ideas must utterly fail.

    Like

  27. Buck,

    Well, since Comp is not in the Bible, we have nothing to worry about here, now do we? Do a word search. It’s not there.

    And, you don’t have to define it…it’s already been defined FOR you, by people who rule over you.

    Ed

    Like

  28. Julie Anne,

    Apologies for leaving the final e off your name in my previous post, and just as I was about to take Buck to Task for not using your correct name. Embarrassing.

    Like

  29. Carmen,

    You had said to Buck:
    “One thing about it Buck, with your attitude – you won’t be defiling yourself any time soon. ..”

    My response:
    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Jesus shows that you can be guilty by just lusting, which requires no action…just thinking it makes one guilty. Jesus shows that evil comes from the heart, not the deed. The deed just confirms our heart.

    Ed

    Like

  30. Buck,

    What I said to Carmen above is the REASON that I call Comps “hypocrites”. They can talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk. That is what the Pharisees were all about. Putting burdens on people that they couldn’t do themselves. Remember Bin Laden? He preached against pornography, and when he was killed, he had a stash of porn mags. You religious people never cease to amuse me. Blame the woman, take no responsibility.

    Ed

    Like

  31. Ed, it seems there is reason to believe that an appallingly large percentage of so called pastors regularly view pornography. It would be interesting to know how the percentages of pornography-viewing pastors compare as between those who espouse patriarchy, complementarianism and egalitarianism, respectively. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know, but I have my suspicions. A pastor who dishonors women in one area of life likely dishonors them at every turn.

    Like

  32. carmen

    July 8, 2014 @ 2:32 PM

    One thing about it Buck, with your attitude – you won’t be defiling yourself any time soon. ..

    Carmen: if I so chose, I could allow myself to be defiled any day of the week, any hour of the day. While you may think you are funny, and get you little chuckle, it is not a laughing matter. A man does not even have to go looking for it. All he needs to do is nod his head like he agrees with her, and if she thinks she’s in control, then that’s all it takes. You played by the rules, you’ll get some for complying.
    He/ I can have all he/ I want/s. We live in a sad world. Maybe that is why it is included at the end of the bible in revelation. It is so freely offered to men. The man that is not defiled is the man that has learned to say no to a woman, especially when he has every opportunity to say yes but has chosen to have the strength to say no.
    So Carmen, have your chuckle – You think I won’t be defiled anytime soon because I won’t nod my head yes.
    I have news for you Carmen.
    You won’t learn this from any Egalitarian or Comp blog, but this is the reality. Even if this offends you it does not change the truth of it.
    I can tell you from personal experience, too many times to tell, and I had to learn it when I learned to say no. You have to get to that point. Just like Revelation 14.
    Strong men of God scare women.
    It doesn’t happen , until you grow a pair that are not in “her” hands. Go to wall street in NYC. Stand at the bull at Wall and Broadway and watch. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about. Like the stock market, it’s bull or bear.

    This is for message for you Gary. Free wisdom buddy, no charge, from and elder living a life.

    If you say no to sex to a woman/ wife, she will be furious. She will demand it from you and it will not be pretty, or seductive. It wil lbe downright defiling. Yes, you read that correctly. Demand and ORDER you to give it to her. If she does not have that control over you, then her power is lost.
    That is the spirit of Egalitarianism. To have the power OVER men. Complimentarianism scares them, because it comes with male power of spirit.
    Not just me. I’ve had my share of testimonies of Christian men that were physically assaulted, had their vehicles scratched up, kicked out of the house and marriages ended, because she lost her power OVER her husband.
    Deuteronony 28:13.

    Poor poor Samson. Thought he was a strongman. Remember what Delilah said: you don’t love me. Went straight to his heart because he did. And she knew he did.
    All the while she was scheming against him to bring him down.
    That is Egalitarianism.

    Like

  33. Yes, Ed. Poor widdle ole Buck – he’s just SO misunderstood. Get your violins out, folks. . .
    Gary, you have it bang on. As Ed and others have been trying to tell Buck, it’s all about respect. He’ll never get it; misogynists never do.

    Like

  34. Gary,

    Another word that I have for Patriarchy is “anarchist”. That’s why they advocate for homeschooling, uneducated daughters, barefoot and pregnant wives, no form of professional counseling, no military, etc. The more that they can keep isolated from the “world”, due to religious reasons, it’s all a set up for keeping secret the sins that abuse others. All men have to do is tell these “silly” uneducated women that God said so, and they buy it, hook, line, and sinker. I feel sorry for those who believe that God said so.

    Like

  35. Buck states:
    “The man that is not defiled is the man that has learned to say no to a woman,”

    My response:
    And yet, in your patriarchy circles, the woman has no choice to to say yes to the man. Get real, Buck…buck up!

    You make it sound like your are God’s gift to women, that they just can’t resist you, that you must fight ’em off, like with body guards, or something, as if you were Elvis Presley. Dude, I’ll bet you are not that good looking!

    Blame yourself for the lust that you have for those women, instead of blaming them for being beautiful, that you have a hard time not lusting. If you were a real man, you would be humble instead of bragging.

    Ed

    Like

  36. Haven’t yet read through all posts on here since I last posted. I might come back and read those posts later and comment.
    Just thought I’d post a link or two I saw in the meantime…

    Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist

    An excerpt or two from that page:

    In a highly unusual critique published yesterday, the Stanford University biologist — who used to be Barbara — said his experience as both a man and a woman had given him an intensely personal insight into the biases that make it harder for women to succeed in science.

    After he underwent a sex change nine years ago at the age of 42, Barres recalled, another scientist who was unaware of it was heard to say, “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s.”

    And as a female undergraduate at MIT, Barres once solved a difficult math problem that stumped many male classmates, only to be told by a professor: “Your boyfriend must have solved it for you.”

    It goes on and on like that, where the person who now presents himself as a male (Barres) discusses the prejudices he used to face while he used to present himself as a woman.

    Barres basically demonstrates that men in American culture, and their comments and views, are usually afforded much more automatic respect than women and women’s comments, and that men do not get interrupted as much as women, etc.

    Like

  37. Owen Strachan says…

    “If not your gender and sexuality, what is the gospel for?”
    (1: 54 mark)

    I guess only for salvation CBMW stule. He goes on to loosely tie salvation with complemetarianism.

    Oh, and awesome news! At the 7: 11 mark he says the following:

    “If we never receive another dollar we will continue to publish whatever we can on line because we are needed. Not for our own sake, but because churches like yours commissioned us to speak truth on these contested issues.”

    Fantastic!!! No need for anyone to send in their hard earned money for the new partnership program at CBMW–Stand Against the Tide. About SATT-

    “Greetings—my name is Owen Strachan. As CBMW President, it’s my pleasure to introduce the summer 2014 “Stand Against the Tide” campaign. I’m delighted to announce that we have a $25,000 matching offer on the table and, on this invigorating occasion, are inaugurating our brand-new partnership program, which includes the opportunity to join CBMW for a leadership retreat in a coastal locale (see below).”
    (Stand Against the Tide: An Opportunity to Partner with CBMW CBMW website)

    Wow–nice, coastal scenery AND leadership all in one? Help me resist…

    Like

  38. Geez, Buck – that little diatribe of yours (above) certainly illustrated many of the points the commenters have articulated in this thread – good on ya, mate!

    It might really blow you away, Buck, to realize that most women (and many men!) do not want to trade one power over another; in fact, we’d like a complete paradigm shift. You know, like how about we all have equal rights, respect and opportunities?? It’s a tough one to wrap your head around, I know. . .

    Like

  39. Another:

    10 Simple Words Every Girl Should Learn by S. Chemaly

    Men interrupt women, speak over them, and discount their contributions to a discussion with surprising regularity. Here’s how women should respond.

    …Globally, childhood politeness lessons are gender asymmetrical. We socialize girls to take turns, listen more carefully, not curse, and resist interrupting in ways we do not expect boys to. Put another way, we generally teach girls subservient habits and boys to exercise dominance.

    I routinely find myself in mixed-gender environments (life) where men interrupt me. Now that I’ve decided to try and keep track, just out of curiosity, it’s quite amazing how often it happens. It’s particularly pronounced when other men are around.

    [She also mentions how when among a group of men that other men, like male waiters at restaurants, refuse to make eye contact with her and will not acknowledge her presence – they speak only to the men she is with and will pay her no mind unless another male in the group tells the waiter/male “this is Ms. So and so”]

    …These two ways of establishing dominance in conversation, frequently based on gender, go hand-in-hand with this last one: A woman, speaking clearly and out loud, can say something that no one appears to hear, only to have a man repeat it minutes, maybe seconds later, to accolades and group discussion.

    … It’s not hard to fathom why so many men tend to assume they are great and that what they have to say is more legitimate. It starts in childhood and never ends. Parents interrupt girls twice as often and hold them to stricter politeness norms. Teachers engage boys, who correctly see disruptive speech as a marker of dominant masculinity, more often and more dynamically than girls.

    Like

  40. Diane,

    “Owen Strachan says…

    “If not your gender and sexuality, what is the gospel for?”
    (1: 54 mark)”

    It’s really funny that they always look at the flesh (Genitals), whereas Jesus is always talking about looking at the spirit. The flesh profits nothing…the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, etc., etc.

    The gospel is for the spirit, not the flesh. The flesh dies, the spirit is eternal. Spirit hath not flesh and blood. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

    Where do they come up with the gospel is for gender and sexuality?

    Ed

    Like

  41. Buck, you seem to be addressing me when you say, “This is for message for you Gary. Free wisdom buddy, no charge, from and elder living a life.”

    Huh? I wonder if you could rephrase that, only using coherent intelligible sentences this time. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

    Like

  42. I already tried to tell him that, Gary but I should have known he wouldn’t take advice from a woman. . . .and a radical (even RABID!) feminist, at that. The horror!

    Like

  43. Also, Buck, I’m still waiting to hear about what kind of man your father was/is. How did/does he treat your mother? Hopefully in a manner that was/is more respectful than the attitudes you exhibit toward women! Still, maybe you are only following your father’s example, in which case we could at least understand a bit better where you’re coming from.

    Like

  44. I dunno, Carmen. To my way of thinking you have to be rabidly anti-men to qualify as a radical feminist, and you don’t come across as being any such thing. On the other hand, Buck seems to think that anybody who opposes his views on gender and faith is anti-men. So, by Buck’s lights, you and I are both radical feminists. Well, so be it. In that case I’m a radical feminist and proud of it.

    Like

  45. Buck said: “If you say no to sex to a woman/ wife, she will be furious. She will demand it from you and it will not be pretty, or seductive. It wil lbe downright defiling. Yes, you read that correctly. Demand and ORDER you to give it to her. If she does not have that control over you, then her power is lost.That is the spirit of Egalitarianism. To have the power OVER men.”

    Buck, that’s just f****ed up. (Sorry Julie Anne and anyone offended by that. I only curse when necessary.) Really and truly. Anybody who demands sex is an abuser. Demanding sex is in no way the spirit of egalitarianism. Even though I don’t agree with complimentarianism, I would never stoop so low to suggest that’s how those relationships work. I believe that you are mistaking abusive relationships for loving ones – no matter how that relationship works.

    Even though we didn’t communicate much with each other on here, I really tried to be open minded with you and see things from your perspective. You crossed the line with me with this sick twist.

    Like

  46. Gary said,

    On the other hand, Buck seems to think that anybody who opposes his views on gender and faith is anti-men. So, by Buck’s lights, you and I are both radical feminists. Well, so be it. In that case I’m a radical feminist and proud of it.

    I said something similar above.

    Buck does not seem to understand what Christian gender complementarianism is, nor does he understand what Christian gender egalitarianism is.

    Buck claims he read at least one egalitarian book that a woman friend gave him, but I doubt it, because he continues to conflate Christian gender egal. with secular feminism, and the two are not the same.

    Most secular feminists would loathe Christian egalitarianism.

    I used to have a gender comp friend, who, after I sent him a book on Christian gender egalitarianism years ago – he claimed he read it, but I could tell from his critical comments about the book he did not. All he did was read the back cover summary of the book.

    For example, he said, in an e mail to me, “No where in the book did the author address ‘Argument X’ by gender comps.”

    -I was totally puzzled by that. I wrote back and told him, “Are you kidding me? All of chapter five was devoted to that very topic alone. You didn’t read the book at all, did you?”

    As I said above, my impression is that Buck has some very strange views about women, and he assumes any view that is not totally in line with his meets the definition of “radfem” (radical feminism) even if said views are not “radfem” at all.

    It’s ironic he keeps doing that, because he claims he is not MRA and is annoyed some here said his views = MRA.

    He doesn’t like being slapped with the MRA label but feels fine calling other people here radfems, even though nobody here has said they are one.

    He sounds reminds me of Elliot Rodger – blame women, blame feminists, the rage, fury, etc.
    Why law enforcement missed Elliot Rodger’s warnings signs

    Like

  47. Ok. Let me get this straight. I am writing about women lusting after me. I say no.
    And you say it is my lusting. So it’s my fault a woman can’t control herself. Isn’t that called my feminism, victim blaming ?
    Here’s a stud muffin. Hot off the press.

    Woman pulls knife on man for not having sex with her

    Posted on July 7, 2014 by womenformenorganization

    A 56-year-old Florida woman is facing an assault rap after allegedly threatening a 25-year-old man with a knife after he “rejected her sexual advances,” police report.

    Elizabeth Highley (seen at right) is scheduled to be arraigned July 11 on the felony charge, for which she is free on $3500 bail.

    According to an arrest affidavit, Highley was entertaining victim Crue Finley in her Jensen Beach home when trouble began around midnight on June 16. Finley told St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office deputies that he and Highley “are not a couple.”

    Finley, investigators reported, said that Highley “wanted to have sex,“ but he “rejected her sexual advances causing her to become angry and violent.” Highley allegedly grabbed a knife and sliced Finley’s left thumb as he fled her Windmill Village home.

    Cops subsequently encountered Highley as she ran after Finley, who is pictured at left. Highley, carrying a large knife and a broken wooden cane, complied with Officer Paul Hutchinson’s order to drop the weapons and lie down on the ground.

    Highley, the cop noted, was “angry, crying and appeared to be intoxicated” when taken into custody. She was released later in the day after posting bail on the aggravated assault count.

    Good man. Was not defiled. Hmm. think she was lusting after him. Not the other way around.
    I guess by your point of view they should have arrested him. He’s a man.

    Or how about this man. Turns her down and she says “what’s your problem”. She is a lawyer. He taped it and charged her. She tried to lie her way out until he showed the tape to the police. This video was from the news.
    See the comments. Many think because he turned her down, he must be gay.
    Guess he must be a misogynist.

    Another man not defiled. Good strong men.

    Like

  48. Oh, p.s. where I said,
    He doesn’t like being slapped with the MRA label but feels fine calling other people here radfems, even though nobody here has said they are one.

    I scrolled back up the page to see Carmen signed off as a radical feminist, didn’t see that until now 🙂

    Don’t know if she was being serious or tongue in cheek.

    Either way, I am not sure what it matters if someone is a radical feminist or not in this thread. I don’t agree with all their (radical feminists) views all the time myself, but I try to weigh their views on the merit of their points, rather than dismiss all their points out right for being “radfems”

    Like

  49. “I was in a meeting at the highest levels of management in a University. There was me….and 35 women. We were in a training in Crucial Conversations, on how to manage crucial conversations well.”

    Well, there is your problem if that is where you work.

    Interesting thing about unions….my dad made a living negotiating with unions mainly teamsters. He made sure we understood that unions were once totally necessary in this country. Those with power often abused it with workers before so many labor laws were passed. However, a funny thing happened with unionization. The union leaders got power and of course, abuse it. They live high on the hog while egging those they represent into strikes to get another holiday or 50 cents per hour.

    Funny how gaining power changes people.

    Like

  50. Diane said,
    What do you hope to accomplish at such God-forsaken blogs?

    Can’t speak for Buck, but I come for the camaraderie, interesting links, the exposes on abuse and oddities in the church today and I stay for the Gomer Pyle and tiny violin videos 🙂

    Like

  51. Equality. Most men cave when offered.
    Take away the offer, and she has to meet you on the grounds of character. Not her beauty. Not her fake this and fake that.
    If the man is going to “take” your body, and it is not about you as a person or your character, run.
    Character. If you say no to the advances and not make it at all about her body, she will insist all you care about is her body and beauty.
    If you say you are not interested in her body, or her outward beauty, but are interested in her as a human being, God’s daughter, and who she is as a woman in Christ, she will make it about her body.
    She will continue to make it about her body, and her power OVER you, until she gets that you are strong and will not give in.
    Only when you don’t cave, and she understands that, and don’t come under the spell of her beauty can she meet you with her character and not her body and mutual submission occur. Both equal.
    If she has no character she will continue to make it about her body. She wants you to adore her physical features so you don’t look for the hidden person of the heart, with a gentle and quiet spirit.
    None of those here.
    If she insists on enticing you run. IF he insists on making it about your body, then the female should run.

    Like

  52. “I am on a blog site that is totally egalitarian. What is being mirrored back is Egalitarian thought. Nothing more than that and I go in with open eyes.
    Nobody on this site is going to agree with complimentarian thought, or anyone who backs up CBMW. That is a given”

    1. I am not “egalitarian”. That is too “French Revolution” for me. I am a “mutualist”. There are 58 “one anothers” in the NT that are NOT categorized as pink or blue but for both genders who are believers. Comps leave out Eph 5:21 because it is way too inconvenient. You obviously have not read Luke 8 or you would be LIVID with Jesus and his uppity women followers in the 1st Century, no less.

    2. One thing you have not done is ask why anyone disagrees with comp/patirarchy. For me, it was both deep study in historical context and language studies AND watching the damage it has caused not only over history but over the last 30 years when Piper made up the word and the Danvers statement was created. I have seen the damage first hand, but better still, it was a HUGE money maker for so many it is sickening.

    Like

  53. “Where do they come up with the gospel is for gender and sexuality?”

    Don’t know, you can get more context from that short video if you care to watch, but it’s my opinion they are obsessed with women and that’s where they come up with it.

    I just finished watching Owen’s little talk on Fox news via the link he provides on his twitter. He’s talking about how at this particular college (Bowdoin), one can take a leadership position in a group one wishes to join-even if one does not agree with that group’s beliefs. The fact that anyone can join a particular group while not adhering to the group’s beliefs is not the issue/problem. All are welcome to join all groups. The outrage Owen has is that one can be the LEADER (the big L…the leader of the ship…in leadershiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip) of a group, even if one does not ascribe to the group’s beliefs. And, for an example of a group at Bowdoin in which this could possibly take place, Owen picks the middle eastern belly dancing association (an actual group at Bowdoin — he and Huckabee go on to have a few laughs and jokes about that group ha ha wink wink because, you know, evidently professing Christian men in leadershiiiiiiiiiip positions think it’s funny to mention women and belly dancing on TV) and is dismayed that this group has to allow non-belly dancers to be leaders in the group, if they so desire. And non-Christians as leaders in whatever professing Christian groups there are at Bowdoin.

    Really, Owen? There was no other group at Bowdoin that you could use as an example other than women doing some kind of dance wearing what I doubt the CBMW would deem modest costume?

    But then, you know, if Owen didn’t tweet that his 3 minutes of fame on Huckabee included belly dancing…would his professing Christian buddies tune in to watch?

    Squees me out to no end…that whole CBMW group.

    Like

  54. Lydia

    July 8, 2014 @ 4:54 PM

    “I was in a meeting at the highest levels of management in a University. There was me….and 35 women. We were in a training in Crucial Conversations, on how to manage crucial conversations well.”

    Well, there is your problem if that is where you work.

    Interesting thing about unions….my dad made a living negotiating with unions mainly teamsters. He made sure we understood that unions were once totally necessary in this country. Those with power often abused it with workers before so many labor laws were passed. However, a funny thing happened with unionization. The union leaders got power and of course, abuse it. They live high on the hog while egging those they represent into strikes to get another holiday or 50 cents per hour.

    Funny how gaining power changes people.

    Lydia: I left the organization. The rest of what you wrote. Finally: reason.

    Like

  55. “Can’t speak for Buck, but I come for the camaraderie, interesting links, the exposes on abuse and oddities in the church today and I stay for the Gomer Pyle and tiny violin videos :)”

    Me too, Miss Daisy~

    Like

  56. “If you were to go over to blog at CBMW, and write your material as you have here, this would be the response they would give to you there:”

    They don’t interact with mutualists unless it is first staged for their benefit. The LAST thing comp celebs will do is openly interact. It is too dangerous.

    Like

  57. Buck said,

    That line is the golden idol of Egalitarianism and taken totally out of context of what Paul is talking about.

    ✹ The golden idol of Complementarians includes,

    – Male Hierarchy and Authority, in spite of Christ’s teaching:

    But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ”
    You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26″It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant…
    (Matthew 20:25, 26)

    ✹ Additional golden calves of Christian gender complementarians:

    -Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord (from Ephesians Ch 5)

    – I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12)

    – like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. (1 Peter 3.6)

    ✹ Other golden calves of complementarianism:

    Misinterpreted renditions of Genesis (where goofy arguments are made to “prove” male hierarchy is biblical, such as Adam naming the animals shows dominance – never mind God grants dominion to BOTH Adam AND Eve, etc.)

    Meanwhile, complementarians dismiss, ignore, or explain away passages and verses such as,

    -Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (from Ephesians Ch 5)

    – “Greet Andronicus and Junia my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” (Romans 16:7; Junia = female apostle)

    – Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. (Judges 4:4)

    – But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died (Judges 4:21)

    – Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:18)

    ✹ Regarding: Revelation 14.

    “Defilement” in that verse seems to be referring to sexually immoral acts, and I think only to Jewish males who are alive when Jesus returns at the Second Coming (or shortly before).

    As the Bible elsewhere teaches the concept that sex is only for a man married to a woman, and that all homosexual sex acts – and hetero sex outside the bounds of marriage – is sin, I don’t think one can twist “did not defile themselves with women” too many ways. It seems to be referring to sexual acts (eg, fornication).

    Galatians 3:28

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Gender complementarians really dislike this verse and try to twist it around to mean all sorts of weird things, like it is only referring to “salvation.” You must really dislike this verse to bring up some odd counter argument about Rev 14 that is not even clear.

    Buck said,
    Jesus will have the last word. Your final destination is a Patriarchy. Take your complaints up about his lop sided Board of Men

    What does that even mean? Are those your words, or is that a partial quote you pasted from someone else? If those are your words, are you typing while inebriated, or while on medication that is making you loopy? Some of your comments don’t make a lot of sense.

    Like

  58. Lydia: I left the organization.

    I did what men do. Checked out where women dominate. I’ve learned a lot thought about women’s cycles, facial hair, electrolysis, tummy tucks, silicone, botox, waxing, bikini lines…….where they got their tatoos, did you hear what she did ???….all great workplace banter outside my office door, or sitting in a meeting waiting for it to start.
    Women always say they prefer male bosses. That’s what I think I would like. To be in a group of men.
    Maybe on the CBMW Board maybe. Maybe they were all voted on there because women like male bosses.

    Like

  59. “The outrage Owen has is that one can be the LEADER (the big L…the leader of the ship…in leadershiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip) of a group, even if one does not ascribe to the group’s beliefs.”

    Ooh ooh…..I get it now, Kind of like a stealth takeover of an Arminian church by a Calvinist, complEmentarian, authority crazed koolaid drinking pastor. He gets to be the leader, while not ascribing to the group’s view of salvation.

    Like

  60. “The rest of what you wrote. Finally: reason.”

    You are not connecting dots, Buck. Power changes people. Comp teaches power (even if you don’t call it that) over another.

    We are ALL priests in the Holy Priesthood. Even women. You cannot show me one woman verse in the NT I cannot give you the historical context or Greek word meanings that prove women cannot teach men or are not to be considered completely equal with men. Did you know that scripture teaches believing husbands to submit to their believing wives? The problem is you like millions before you believe what the gurus teach and don’t do your own homework which is time consuming and will end up showing you that all of us are just servants. Not very glam.

    The only thing you are arguing for here is the PAGAN Greek Pater familas. That is what CBMW teaches even throwing in some Mormonistic doctrines to boot.

    Like

  61. I did what men do. Checked out where women dominate. I’ve learned a lot thought about women’s cycles, facial hair, electrolysis, tummy tucks, silicone, botox, waxing, bikini lines…….where they got their tatoos, did you hear what she did ???….all great workplace banter outside my office door, or sitting in a meeting waiting for it to start.

    So, you eavesdropped on women’s conversations? Is that what you’re saying? If so . . . . . disturbing!!!

    Like

  62. Buck said,
    Jesus will have the last word. Your final destination is a Patriarchy. Take your complaints up about his lop sided Board of Men

    What does that even mean? Are those your words, or is that a partial quote you pasted from someone else? If those are your words, are you typing while inebriated, or while on medication that is making you loopy? Some of your comments don’t make a lot of sense.

    Daisy, I am thinking Buck has bought into the CBMW teaching a while back that women would be submitting to their husbands or some male for all eternity. This is what the Mormons teach, too. So Patriarchy is in your future…..

    Or he could believe that because Jesus came as a male He “saves” women differently. There is a lot of that thinking in those circles.

    Like

  63. @ Buck Thornton said,

    Like the message you are trying to convey- why can’t you just agree on Egalitarianism from our critique of you.

    This goes beyond egalitarianism and complementariansm. I am turned off by your attitudes, you or your behavior personally.

    My quibble isn’t so much with gender complementarianism in this particular thread (which I do loathe, and I used to be one myself), it’s with how you have behaved in this thread.

    Buck said,

    At no point have I ever said Complimentarianism is Lording it over anybody, or ruling over a wife, or making her submit to all my way and the highway.
    That is NOT complimentarianism. That is again, twisting what complimentarianism stands for.

    No, it’s not twisting it.

    Some Gender Comps do indeed twist “male headship” as mentioned in the Bible to mean that a husband is a “boss” over his wife, and she has to be a submissive doormat.

    Even the so-called “soft complementarianism” (a gentler, kinder form of Christian gender comp) logically leads to the “males are in final authority over females” outcome –

    And that is no matter how you try to white wash it with all the malarky about “women are equal to men in worth, but just have different roles.” ( See: The Bait & Switch of Complementarians)

    Gender complementarians come in different flavors. They are not a monolith.

    For instance. Some gender comps are okay with women teaching boys in Sunday School classes, while others say, “No, women cannot even teach young boys, that is forbidden.” Gender comps cannot even agree on all points of female activity and behavior.

    You may say you don’t believe in lording authority over women, but in the posts I have seen, you have a sense of entitlement and feel that a man should have the final decision making in a relationship.

    That women may surpass males in some areas of life, or that women do not bow and scrape to males, clearly makes you angry, and you label any women who doesn’t agree with your views as being a “radfem.”

    I doubt you even know what complementarianism is – you have sort of claimed to speak for it, believe in it, and you bash egalitarianism and secular feminism, but I don’t think you know what any of those groups think.

    You create strawmen, attributing views to these groups they do not hold.

    See also:
    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy

    That some gender complementarians have twisted Scripture, have made the male gender and male authority into idols they worship, and that their views, when taught to naive or wounded women, cause those women to be very vulnerable to attracting abusive males and remaining trapped in abusive marriages, are just a few of the reasons Christians should abandon gender complementarianism and stop donating funds to organizations or preachers who support it.

    Like

  64. My last counterpart was a neo Nazi control freak who freely and proudly claimed she ruled the roost. She had OCD and controlled everything her husband did.
    Then would complain he was an alcoholic. All his fault. I wondered, living with you…..

    My higher boss was a high powered lady with no kids, VP of Academic, who would say hello to all the ladies but would not even acknowledge my existence.
    200k a year. She was not married…common law. I wondered what her husband would be like. Thinking about it now I picture Gary. A tiny little dude who felt totally empowered by being the hoe of a high powered woman, and she could feel she got…ahem, a man.. Tried to sound all professorly, intelligent and all in his work boots.
    When I started I was invited out to lunch by a high level Director to meet her team in another department. HR…responsible for the behaviours of staff. I was hired to bridge the gap between the two dept’s. . Get them working closely together more.
    Soon as I sat down one of the ladies turned to me and spoke of my all female counterparts: “I feel sorry for you for the people you have to work with” and “we’d love to have a man ( I would have been again, the only man) working in our office.
    Nice way to start a job. We think your co workers are awful. Welcome to our place of employment. But we’re nice.
    I went back to work, told my co-worker I had lunch with this group of women. She told me not to trust any of them, that they were all terrible people and 2 faced, and stormed out of my office.
    Wow. Wonder what the 2nd week at work will be like. Turns out, the Director of the other department ( female) ran off with the husband of her best friend, who worked in my office.
    Hatred abounds.
    I had to wade through piles of sabbatical leave applications for predominantly feminist professors and read through their applications, research areas and published articles. Let’s just say, it’s the ANTI CHRIST.
    Just try disciplining the predominantly female staff as management. First they go on sick leave. Can’t stand the thought of being corrected. How dare you. Even though management does have the authority. Then when you try to get them back, and their sick leave is running out, then it starts. Just like this web site. Female to female: the reason why I was under stress and off work, and now can’t come back, is that I was being bullied and harassed by my manager.
    In other words…I will not submit to the authority of my manager/ mgmt. Then spout of equality when it really is a power struggle.

    As Lydia says, get rid of Comp and trash it, let Egalitarianism and feminism rule and take power, and watch power corrupt absolutely. In fact, it already is.
    And then at the end of it all women will say what they’ve always said: I like men bosses better.

    Like

  65. Buck said,

    A man does not even have to go looking for it. All he needs to do is nod his head like he agrees with her, and if she thinks she’s in control, then that’s all it takes. You played by the rules, you’ll get some for complying.

    And this is a turn off for you, if a woman is in charge in a relationship and calls any of the shots, if she sets any of the “ground rules”… you claim you don’t consider gender comlementarianism as being lording authority over women, but there you are, you do.

    Earlier, you said (in your post above at JULY 6, 2014 @ 9:06 PM),

    The Egalitarian doctrine is unbiblical and will never submit, and if the husband did his part in mutaul submission her teaching would always be the right one.

    So you do consider a woman “submitting” to a man as being a part of complementarianism.

    Your attitude, as on display in this thread towards us and towards women in general, reeks of entitlement, and you are arrogant – that is why you will be unable to attract women. Carmen’s point to you doesn’t rest squarely on the egal vs. comp debate per se, that wasn’t what she was getting at.

    I’ve talked to complementarian guys on other blogs, and I disagreed with them when we debated a tad about gender roles, but I did not pick up any deep-seated animosity from them towards women, as I do from you.

    Buck said,
    “Strong men of God scare women.”

    What women? Secular feminists? What women in particular are you referring to here?

    Buck said,

    “It doesn’t happen , until you grow a pair that are not in “her” hands.”

    Grow a pair of what, Buck?

    You’re being a hypocrite to use that phrase because earlier in the thread you said, in your post at JULY 8, 2014 @ 9:48 AM

    I was in a meeting at the highest levels of management in a University

    … Then the instructor would ask the room their thoughts. In one video a man was having a discussion with an employee. One of the high powered women in the room said “he needs to grow some b_ _ _ s.

    Nobody in the room flinched. Except for me. Can you imagine if the situation was reversed and I made the same comment about a female body part – she’d get better results if _ _ _.

    So, you act offended if a woman uses that kind of language about men, but you use it yourself in regards to men. That is hypocritical.

    Buck said,

    If you say no to sex to a woman/ wife, she will be furious. She will demand it from you and it will not be pretty, or seductive. It wil lbe downright defiling. Yes, you read that correctly. Demand and ORDER you to give it to her. If she does not have that control over you, then her power is lost.

    There are certainly some sexually assertive women in today’s world, but there are also men who are like that.

    Up until about the last 5 to ten years, men were very sexually aggressive against women, and would tell women they were dating if they did not have sex with them, they would dump them, break up with them. That was a classic ploy. So men do this sort of thing too and have been doing it for decades or longer.

    Buck said,

    That is the spirit of Egalitarianism. To have the power OVER men.

    No, that is not egalitarianism. You have obviously not read books or sites by egalitarians, because you have no idea what they believe.

    Egalitarians seek equality with men, not power over.

    Complementarians, on the other hand, already have authority over women (eg, women are not permitted to lead, preach, or teach in churches) and continue to suppress women, because many of them are selfish men who are more interested in authority than in serving other people, or allowing others to serve.

    The remainder of gender complementarians I have run into are well meaning, yet grossly misled, oafs who sincerely think that the Bible teaches male authority over women.

    The well meaning oaf variety of comp tends to think that by being gender comp they are showing faithfulness to God and to the scriptures and standing up against a corrupt secular culture and feminism. They mean well but are so very mistaken.

    Like

  66. Julie Anne,
    To eavesdrop, means that someone has to strain to overhear what is being said in a conversation. Read my text. Having a discussion right outside my door. I mean, right outside my door. Or in an office where we are all sitting, waiting for the a meeting to start. Me…sitting right there.
    If you are thinking they were whispering, I assure you that is not the case. In fact, they usually said when they were done, and noticed what they were doing, that woops, we likely disturbed him while he was trying to work.
    Good try though. Grasping, but good try.
    What is disturbing Julie Anne is that these ladies were so insensitive to their surroundings that they would even have these conversations about their body parts in the presence of a man in a place of work.
    Disturbing.
    Julie Anne

    July 8, 2014 @ 5:32 PM

    I did what men do. Checked out where women dominate. I’ve learned a lot thought about women’s cycles, facial hair, electrolysis, tummy tucks, silicone, botox, waxing, bikini lines…….where they got their tatoos, did you hear what she did ???….all great workplace banter outside my office door, or sitting in a meeting waiting for it to start.

    So, you eavesdropped on women’s conversations? Is that what you’re saying? If so . . . . . disturbing!!!

    Like

  67. Buck,
    Yes, Buck, you have a lust problem. You seem to think that women are the problem, when it is you that is the problem.

    Do you really think that you score points just because a few women are in the news for demanding sex, and act violently when they don’t get it?

    Men have been doing that since man was created. The women only learned that behavior from men.

    However, you religious freaks demand sex all the time. What religion came up with the slogan, “SMOKIN HOT WIFE”, and say it from the pulpit, enticing men to lust after their wives. Yep, its the same who advocate the comp mentality.

    You use women for your own pleasures, and tell them that their only good in life is to have babies, and obey you.

    Yes, buck, you have a lust problem, and you should repent. You also have an ego problem, and you need professional “secular” counseling. Yes, I say secular. If you have a need for glasses, do you seek out a pastor, or an eye doctor? If you have crooked teeth, do you seek out church elder, or the orthodontist? What makes you think that a pastor is qualified to counsel you on your mental disorders? You need professional help.

    Ed

    Like

  68. Buck said,

    “And then at the end of it all women will say what they’ve always said: I like men bosses better.”

    Yep, that is true for me. I am a woman and I prefer male bosses because women who have been socialized under gender complementarian teachings – there is a secular equivalent that Non christian ladies get in secular culture – teaches women it is wrong to be direct and assertive.

    So, this usually makes it difficult to deal with conflict with women.

    I can go to a man and get in his face and tell him to go take a hike. We have it out, and we’re done. Can’t do that with many women. And why can I not do that with most women?

    Because it is a product ofyour views, Buck, that tell women they are being “b-tchy,” “un lady like” and “mean” if they state directly what they really think and feel.

    Buck said,

    “My higher boss was a high powered lady with no kids, VP of Academic, who would say hello to all the ladies but would not even acknowledge my existence.”

    Yeah, and I’ve had MEN do the same thing to me, ignore me.

    This happens to women far more often than men, though, see the links to the articles above I put in one post.

    Like

  69. I didn’t visit the thread for a day and look what I missed!

    Hi Buck! I am a left wing feminist Christian. I am very, very happily married to a strong Christian man who is my best friend. We have an egalitarian marriage. We discuss things, we make decisions together. I can’t think of one single time that there was any insurmountable issue. I think that is because we share the same values and both of us like to make the other person happy. My husband and I both like sex and have it when we both want to. If someone is tired or not feeling well, then there’s always another day; no one fusses about it, no one demands it and no one is defiled. I most certainly do not hate men. Also, I support unions. Wrote my dissertation on them.

    You don’t sound very happy with your life. I am very happy with mine. I thank God for my wonderful husband, daughters, grandsons, and friends.

    Like

  70. Buck speaking: “I wondered what her husband would be like. Thinking about it now I picture Gary.” heh heh. . . Somebody’s getting under Buck’s skin.

    But seriously Buck, where do you get off thinking all those women get angry when you rebuff their sexual overtures? In your dreams maybe? What a perverted, objectifying view of women! There ought to be a registry for men with attitudes like yours. It would keep a good many unsuspecting women from wasting over much time determining what men do and do not suffer from pompous donkey syndrome.

    Like

  71. Buck said (and I’m not sure what this post of his was in reference to),
    “If she has no character she will continue to make it about her body. ”
    —————-
    It’s men and the patriarchal culture that makes it all about a woman’s body.

    Women are taught in American culture from the time we are wee girls that our beauty and compliance are proper attributes, and what males find desirable.

    Christian women get hit double with this message in Christian sermons and books on dating. Typical dating advice I have read over the years from Christians contain contradictions, such as…

    Telling women in chapter one:
    “Your value is in God and Jesus and in your character. Your physical beauty does not matter.”

    But chapter two:
    “Remember, physical beauty matters to men, so stay skinny, exercise daily, go on a diet, grow your hair long (men hate short hair), and wear make-up.”

    And more conflicting advice in Chapter 3:
    “But don’t be TOO attractive, because we must believe in modesty, and we wouldn’t want a brother in Christ to stumble!”

    So, Christian women are taught by male Christians (sometimes by Christian females)
    1. to be sexy, but at the same time, do NOT be sexy, and

    2. that God loves you just the way you already are so don’t change a thing, but human males will not so you must look like an airbrushed model to get a date.

    Christian gender complementarians often perpetuate some of the very same secular sexist attitudes that are out there in the wider culture but claim these ideas are “biblical.”

    Like

  72. “As Lydia says, get rid of Comp and trash it, let Egalitarianism and feminism rule and take power, and watch power corrupt absolutely. In fact, it already is.
    And then at the end of it all women will say what they’ve always said: I like men bosses better.”

    Buck you do not understand egal at all. It is not about power and rule. It is about equality. That is the goal. I realize many cannot wrap their heads around that and I understand that some men find it intimidating. They NEED that pecking order for their own ego sake. Some have even been convinced they cannot be real men without the pecking order in place. Unfortuantely they mostly learn that in church these days. That is what Jesus meant by “don;’t be like the Gentiles” as the Romans were “chain of being” all the way with the pecking order society.

    I, for one, think women can be just as power mongering as men can given the chance and position. However, that is NOT egal at all. That is just power mongering.

    As believers we are to be mutualists. Servants to one another. There is no pink and blue Christiantiy.

    Like

  73. Yep, that is true for me. I am a woman and I prefer male bosses because women who have been socialized under gender complementarian teachings –

    Yup… Complimentarianism is to blame for everything. Just like The Patriarchy, The Patriarchy. Victim. Victim Victim. That is why Egal is compared to feminism. Same thing. Feminism is the wave. Egal is the surfboard.
    If women were no longer victims, and it is a totally feminist and matriarchal world and men were slaves, men made 25% of female income with the bulk of wealth female, it would be men’s fault because the Patriarchy MUST HAVE colluded together that all women had to work and have careers while men were stay at home husbands because they had no education or job prospects and were therefore, free loading. If a man were to say the old is now new, and the old argument of the housewife that her worth was $117,000 a year to the household, which now is his value, and he used housewife’s same reasoning, the answer would be: Nope.
    Where have I heard that.
    What about the bosses and women in the workplace who have no idea what Comp even is ? Are non christian. IS that Comps fault too.
    How about the fact that almost every new idea, technology, computers, bridges, engineering, etc. etc. has been men, cell phones, dishwashers, toilets, plumbing, air conditioning, washing machines, bridges, automobiles, Facebook., man on the moon.
    Getting a woman pregnant.

    Oh yah. That’s comp”s fault too. Sorry. Silly me.

    Like

  74. “There ought to be a registry for men with attitudes like yours.”

    Gary, There is. They are called “e-harmony” and “Christian Single”.

    Oh, the stories I have heard!!!

    :o)

    Like

  75. Lydia said,

    Daisy, I am thinking Buck has bought into the CBMW teaching a while back that women would be submitting to their husbands or some male for all eternity. This is what the Mormons teach, too. So Patriarchy is in your future…..
    Or he could believe that because Jesus came as a male He “saves” women differently. There is a lot of that thinking in those circles.

    Wow. Jesus said in the Bible there will be no marriage in the afterlife, so that is bogus doctrine.

    Also there are problems – some women never marry (like me), while others have several husbands because their spouses keep dying, or maybe they’ve been divorced.

    When those women go to Heaven, do they “submit” to husband 1, 2, 3, or number 4? Do they split time evenly between husbands 1 – 4, or what?

    Like

  76. Buck,

    I notice something in regards to your views, and I think it has been hinted at already.

    You are a comp, which means that men are in charge. You are against eg, and the reasoning is that women are in charge due to feminism.

    WAIT…WAIT…

    That is exactly how you present your case. Buck, Eg is when NO ONE is in charge, and both are in charge. But, you want to be in charge!!!!! Kinda makes ya feel all manly, and such, huh?

    Ed

    Like

  77. Buck said,

    What is disturbing Julie Anne is that these ladies were so insensitive to their surroundings that they would even have these conversations about their body parts in the presence of a man in a place of work.

    And from high school to college to beyond, I have had to sit by males who loudly talk and boast about their sexual conquests and other very private, personal matters, all the while knowing that I (a female) was sitting right there where I could hear everything. So what was your point in bringing this up?

    I’ve also had female co-workers who would come up to me and share very intimate sexual details of their lives that I did not ask for. They volunteered the information, and I wish they had not.

    It appears to me that some members of both genders gossip or can talk about inappropriate topics at inappropriate times. Neither men nor women have a monopoly on being crass, crude, or rude.

    Like

  78. Buck said:
    “How about the fact that almost every new idea, technology, computers, bridges, engineering, etc. etc. has been men, cell phones, dishwashers, toilets, plumbing, air conditioning, washing machines, bridges, automobiles, Facebook., man on the moon.
    Getting a woman pregnant.

    Oh yah. That’s comp”s fault too. Sorry. Silly me.”

    That’s because YOUR religion forbade women of doing anything, including voting. YOUR religion dictated what women did, and did not do.

    Ed

    Like

  79. “Buck you do not understand egal at all.” How true. Problem is, it just doesn’t work to try to communicate with some people as though they were rational beings. I do hope I’m misjudged Buck, but I get the distinct impression we are not engaging his rational faculties so much as we’re engaging his ego. With some people, and I’m not saying this applies specifically to Buck, we are actually engaging thier mental and social pathologies.

    Like

  80. chapmaned24 said,

    However, you religious freaks demand sex all the time. What religion came up with the slogan, “SMOKIN HOT WIFE”, and say it from the pulpit, enticing men to lust after their wives. Yep, its the same who advocate the comp mentality.

    One perfect example: preacher Mark Driscoll who pretty much claims that all women “owe” their husbands oral sex, and he attempted to back that up by quoting parts of Song of Songs from the Old Testament..

    In the book he wrote about marital sex (I read reviews of it and a few free online excerpts), IIRC, Driscoll, big, entitled, selfish, sex- obsessed, whiny cry baby that he is, cannot go without sex for more than two days (and he assumes all other men are the same)….

    He had a part of the book where he said women can/should still have sex with their husbands even during their periods, which is the part I think he got into mentioning sodomy between married couples. No concern at all about the woman’s health or mood, all Driscoll cares about is that husbands are sexually serviced when they want to be.

    I don’t think that Driscoll (and men like him) know or care that many women, when they do get their periods, feel very sick – there are heavy cramps and other painful side effects. Guys like him don’t care. They only want to get their own needs met.

    I have seen similar teachings/ views from other men preachers over the years, it’s not just Driscoll. He’s just the handiest example right off hand.

    Like

  81. Gary wrote,

    But seriously Buck, where do you get off thinking all those women get angry when you rebuff their sexual overtures? In your dreams maybe? What a perverted, objectifying view of women! There ought to be a registry for men with attitudes like yours. It would keep a good many unsuspecting women from wasting over much time determining what men do and do not suffer from pompous donkey syndrome.

    Up above, he said when he took a woman on a date one of the first topics he brought up was “headship,” to see how she would react.

    I told him if I went on a date with a guy and the first thing out of his mouth (or if the guy mentions it at all early in the relationship) was headship, and anything related to it – I would take that as a “red flag” and not date the guy further.

    Such men are looking for a compliant doormat who will quietly take abuse off of them.

    If you read books about abusive or controlling men (I’ve read at least one devoted totally to the subject, and other books that have chapters on it, as well as blogs about the issue, etc), women are told one huge warning sign to look for when dating are guys who are too controlling, who try to call the shots from the start, men who express a lot of concern in who has the “say so” in the relationship, etc., they usually end up being very abusive.

    Another red flag or two I learned about in these books are men who
    1. consistently blame women all the time for just about everything including their personal failures in life (as well as blaming their exes for everything), and
    2. guys who have a gigantic sense of entitlement.

    And I see some of those traits in Buck.

    Like

  82. Buck said,

    “Yup… Complimentarianism is to blame for everything. Just like The Patriarchy, The Patriarchy. Victim. Victim Victim. ” etc

    Yup, gender complementarianism is indeed to blame for a lot of things you are incorrectly blaming feminism and egalitarianism on.

    The reason male bosses are usually easier to work for is that they have not been conditioned by complementarianism or patriarchal beliefs to be compliant, meek, and avoid conflict, but women are taught to have those traits.

    Stop blaming egalitarianism for the very problems compism has created.

    Buck said

    How about the fact that almost every new idea, technology, computers, bridges, engineering, etc. etc. has been men, cell phones, dishwashers, toilets, plumbing, air conditioning, washing machines, bridges, automobiles, Facebook., man on the moon.
    Getting a woman pregnant.

    There would be more women inventors and such, but yes, in decades past, men have prohibited women from going to school and getting an education but have insisted they only
    1. get married and
    2. make babies.

    Yes, that is what your side teaches, that the only proper or biblical roles for women are marriage and baby making…

    NOT college and NOT having a career where they could invent things like the automobile.

    So yes, you have complementarianism and sexism to blame for women not having made more contributions – they have been prevented by men.

    Like

  83. Miss Daisy,
    You have inserted a lot of links. Feminism, MRA, Men’s web sites. Are you an MRA ?
    Mod removed video link. Buck, I’m not interested in promoting your favorite videos on my site.

    Like

  84. Gary said,

    With some people, and I’m not saying this applies specifically to Buck, we are actually engaging thier mental and social pathologies.

    That is one reason I may disengage. Also, he doesn’t make a lot of sense to me in most of his posts.

    He comes off as just having a lot of hatred against women, too – very much “blame women, blame women, blame women, all faults in the world are caused by women, men never do anything wrong, all men are always victims all the time.”

    Like

  85. Buck said,
    Miss Daisy,
    You have inserted a lot of links. Feminism, MRA, Men’s web sites. Are you an MRA ?
    ——————
    You’re the one who claims not to be MRA and never to visit their sites, etc, yet you did visit a site with MRA related content.

    So, you are an MRA after all.

    Like

  86. P.S.
    I already said in a post early on above that I visit a range of sites from moderate, to left wing, to right wing, and I sometimes visit sites by atheists, Christians, ex Christians, and other groups pertaining to religion.

    Although I am right wing, I like to sometimes read the opinions and topics that people of other ideologies and worldviews are discussing.

    Like

  87. “When those women go to Heaven, do they “submit” to husband 1, 2, 3, or number 4? Do they split time evenly between husbands 1 – 4, or what?”

    I am sure Solomon has it figured out. :o) You gotta wonder if they even thought of Solomon when they wrote that tripe.

    Like

  88. “With some people, and I’m not saying this applies specifically to Buck, we are actually engaging thier mental and social pathologies.”

    I think you have nailed it.

    Like

  89. I have a hunch Diane will be pleased with your comment, Lydia 🙂

    Yes, he looks far too young to be telling us how to live out our manhood/womanhood.

    Like

  90. Gary wrote,

    But seriously Buck, where do you get off thinking all those women get angry when you rebuff their sexual overtures? In your dreams maybe? What a perverted, objectifying view of women! There ought to be a registry for men with attitudes like yours. It would keep a good many unsuspecting women from wasting over much time determining what men do and do not suffer from pompous donkey syndrome.

    Where do I get off “thinking”. Not thought Gary. I wish I could say this is “something I made up”. It is not. What I wrote is contrary to everything I knew, or even wanted to believe, until I have experienced it for myself. Lived out experience…not a dream.
    The first time it happens it is more than the senses can take in. In fact, you blame yourself for upsetting her. Then you realize you have experienced abuse by a woman, and when you’ve bought the kool aid all your life by the continuous drone it’s men who are pigs, men who oppress, not women, it’s a little overwhelming. You don’t want to believe it. But you know what you just lived out.
    Then you think, maybe it’s just her. Then it happens again with someone else. It starts to happen when you’ve learned to say no, and it happens regularly. You are lashed out and hated and she is angry with you and accused there “must be something wrong with you” if you won’t bow the advances. Or you’re gay…or impotent. Or that you think you’re better than they are. Then you get another look at relationship dynamics and realize things aren’t what you thought.
    I used to work in a very public environment. Met a lot of people I would not normally meet. My pager would go off and you’d have to go to a house. Get to the house …..got to claw your way out the door. I lost business and a lot of monetary transactions because I would not give them sex.

    I am not bragging. I am sorry it is this way. There is nothing about me in appearance that would makes me in any way special. I work very hard now after learning this to even get myself into those situations and know now the red flags.
    Try being stalked, constantly driving by your house. Then when you catch them doing it, and call them out on it, they get furious, then to have men (mangina men) coming to their rescue threatening your life and livelihood. The nerve to have men come and threaten you because you had the audacity to catch them stalking and actually speak out about it. How dare you offend their virtue. The men….they don’t know you…just felt they need to “come to her protection” and they’d never believe it was her, stalking a man. It MUST be the other way around.
    Little men, who threaten by email or phone and “I’m coming to your house to beat you up, get to the door and they look up at you and your a foot taller and got 70 pounds on him, and the look on their face when they realizes he’s just put his own life at risk of having the crap beat out of him. Then they run. And they risked themselves…..For a lie.
    I am not talking about 20 yr olds or trailer trash. I am talking about middle aged professional working mothers who own houses and have good jobs.
    I would never in my wildest dreams ever thought this is reality. But it is.
    There is nothing special about me. Just an ordinary, average man. Except for the strength to say no.
    I don’t think it’s the man or how he looks. It’s the challenge to dominate a strong man. I am not going to take the blame here for the perversion of dominating women, or what I am saying is fantasy or ego, when it is something I neither desire or welcome.
    If you cave into her charms and say yes, when you were saying no, it strengthens her. Sick. Then you realize proverbs 5, 6, and 7 are alive and the word of God.
    My motto and strength. Only for a wife, when I get married, when I find her.
    I’d say Gary, you don’t want to believe it.
    I understand that Gary. I really do.

    Like

  91. “Yes, he looks far too young to be telling us how to live out our manhood/womanhood”

    Ok, this is just a side note and perhaps just my weird bent but I wonder if anyone else has the same creep factor that I do when it comes to the words “manhood/womanhood”. It makes me think of those cheesy bodice ripper romance novels my old college roomie was always reading.

    My take on Owen: Somebody at SBTS is trying to help him make a name for himself OR no one else wanted the job of trying resusitate CBMW. He is Bruce Ware’s son in law. SBTS often chooses young indoctrinated yes men for positions like this. He will do what the grown ups tell him to do.

    Like

  92. Lydia said,
    “I am sure Solomon has it figured out. :o) You gotta wonder if they even thought of Solomon when they wrote that tripe.”

    Oh, like with the “why don’t we cut the baby in half” story? I see what you did there. 🙂

    Like

  93. Buck, Your comments started to sound like “therapy” a while back. I do find it a bit incredible that all these women are throwing themselves at you and demanding you ply them with sex. And when you say no, they are stalking you, refusing your no, etc. But then, I probably do not have your definition of a “gentile spirit” and am easily deceived. (wink)

    There is only one place for you, Buck. Comp/Pat church staffer. It might be the only place you are safe from all these domineering sex starved women! (But I cannot vouch for what goes on behind stage. I have seen some evil stuff in the Name of Jesus)

    CON might be hiring. I hear Miano needs someone to do street stuff with him but you have to beg for money and send your future doormat…er wife out to work while you go and insult people in Europe. For better pay, check out the New Cal mega churches. They are growing and you would fit right in.

    Like

  94. Re:
    Buck Thornton
    JULY 8, 2014 @ 9:22 PM
    —————————-
    Sometimes men stalk women, some men won’t take “no” for an answer, even when a lady makes it clear she has zippo romantic interest in a man. This happens to both genders. I’ve had it happen to me.

    Buck said,
    “It’s the challenge to dominate a strong man.”

    1. Not necessarily. Some women are just very assertive and go after what they want. That is not a sign of them trying to dominate, just them going after a goal.

    2. You don’t strike me as being a strong man, but then, I’m not totally sure how you are defining “strong”

    Like

  95. Lydia said,
    “Actually, I was thinking of his 600 wives submitting to him for eternity!”

    Ooooh, I missed the joke the first go round. 🙂

    I don’t know why anyone would want to have more than one partner at a time.

    I was engaged to a guy several years back, and he alone was a handful. I could not imagine trying to live out that nightmare with multiple men. One headache was more than enough.

    Like

  96. Lydia said,

    I do find it a bit incredible that all these women are throwing themselves at you and demanding you ply them with sex. And when you say no, they are stalking you, refusing your no, etc. But then, I probably do not have your definition of a “gentile spirit” and am easily deceived. (wink)

    Another recurring problem I’ve had since my teen years and beyond are men who mistake friendly, platonic chit chat for sexual come-ons or flirtation.

    I have seen and known a few sexually aggressive women in my lifetime, women who come on strongly to men, I don’t deny they exist, but, another problem are men who confuse platonic overtures from a woman as being flirtation or romantic interest.

    I find this study somewhat strange, because my experience has been that many men I’ve met over my life have read my platonic greetings and conversation as being flirting, when I was not the least interested in them romantically, but here’s a link to the study:

    It’s official: Men and women are TERRIBLE at flirting, reveal researchers – and say the key to attracting a partner is to abandon all attempts at subtlety

    Like

  97. Warning Signs of Abusive Men

    Taken from various sites around the internet:

    From “newhopeforwomen.org/” (partial list from their page on signs to look for):

    The following is a list of behaviors that may indicate a potential batterer. It is not the purpose of the listing to imply that every person with some of these attributes is a batterer or potential batterer.

    Jealousy
    At the start of the relationship, an abuser will equate jealously with love. The abuser will question the victim about who the victim talks to, accuse the victim of flirting, or become jealous of time spent with others. The abuser may call the victim frequently during the day, drop by unexpectedly, refuse to let the victim work, check the car mileage, or ask friends to watch the victim.

    Controlling behavior
    In the beginning an abuser will attribute controlling behavior to concern for the victim (for example, the victim’s safety or decision-making skills). As this behavior progresses the situation will worsen, and the abuser may assume all control of finances or prevent the victim from coming and going freely.

    Unrealistic expectations
    An abuser expects the victim to meet all of the abuser’s needs, to take care of everything emotionally and domestically.

    Blames others for problems
    An abuser will blame others for all problems or for the abuser’s own shortcomings. Someone is always out to get the abuser or is an obstacle to the abuser’s achievements. The victim or potential victim will be blamed for almost anything.

    Blames others for feelings
    An abuser will use feelings to manipulate the victim. Common phrases to look for: “You’re hurting me by not doing what I want.” “You control how I feel.”

    Hypersensitivity
    An abusive person is easily insulted, perceiving the slightest setbacks as personal attacks.

    Verbal abuse
    This behavior involves saying things that are intended to be cruel and hurtful, cursing or degrading the victim, or putting down the victim’s accomplishments.

    ((( Rigid sex roles )))
    The victim, almost always a woman, will be expected to serve. For instance, a male abuser will see women as inferior to men, responsible for menial tasks, stupid, and unable to be a whole person without a relationship.

    From http://www.helpguide.org:

    Emotional abuse: It’s a bigger problem than you think
    When people think of domestic abuse, they often picture battered women who have been physically assaulted. But not all abusive relationships involve violence. …

    Emotional abuse includes verbal abuse such as yelling, name-calling, blaming, and shaming. Isolation, intimidation, and controlling behavior also fall under emotional abuse.

    ~ Abusers use a variety of tactics to manipulate you and exert their power: (partial list):

    Denial and blame – Abusers are very good at making excuses for the inexcusable.
    They will blame their abusive and violent behavior on a bad childhood, a bad day, and even on the victims of their abuse.
    Your abusive partner may minimize the abuse or deny that it occurred. He or she will commonly shift the responsibility on to you: Somehow, his or her violent and abusive behavior is your fault.

    Like

  98. Warning Signs of Abusive Men (continued)

    ~ From “westislandwomensshelter.org/”

    Many ask the question: Does an abusive man deliberately plan to become abusive when beginning a relationship?

    The differences between a woman falling in love and an abusive man falling in love are as follows:

    She is looking for an equal partner to love and be loved by.

    He [the abusive man] is dreaming of having a woman that meets all of his needs, is beautiful at all times of day and night, has no needs of her own and is in awe of his brilliance and charm. He desires a woman who will cater to him and never complain about anything he does or darken his day with frustrations or unhappiness about her own life.

    Although abuse of a woman is not the goal, control certainly is. He then finds himself using abuse to gain the control he feels he has the right to.

    How can I tell if a man I’m seeing will become abusive? Early Warning Signs:

    He speaks disrespectfully about his former partners
    A certain amount of anger and resentment toward an ex-partner is normal, but beware of the man who is very focused on his bitterness or who tells you about it inappropriately early on in your dating.
    Be especially cautious of the man who talks bout women from his past in degrading or condescending ways or who characterizes himself as a victim of abuse by women.

    He is disrespectful towards you

    He is self-centered
    Watch out for a man that does most of the talking, listens poorly when you speak, chronically switches the topic of conversation back to himself. …

    Nothing is ever his fault
    He blames something or someone for anything that goes wrong. As time goes by, his target of blame increasingly becomes you. He may make promises he can’t keep, coming up with a stream of excuses for disappointing you or behaving irresponsibly, and perhaps taking serious economic advantage of you in the process.

    He has double standards
    Beware of a man who has a different set of rules for his behavior than for yours.

    He has negative attitudes toward women
    Stereotyped beliefs about women’s sex roles also contribute to the risk of abuse. His conviction that women should take care of the home, or that a man’s career is more important than woman’s, can become a serious problem, because he may punish you when you start refusing to live in his box.

    Like

  99. Buck, there’s you in black and white, buddy! I hope you heed what people are telling you. . . Daisy went to much trouble to find excellent info. She’s trying to HELP you, here.
    I must admit, however, that when I heard the song, “Goodbye, Earl” on my iPod this morning, I thought of you. . . 🙂

    Like

  100. Ah, but I fear Buck is beyond being helped. He can neither see, hear or know the truth. Indeed, I fear his only contribution to the betterment of mankind is as a laughing stock. The donkey in the Shrek movies comes to mind. In my humble opinion.

    Like

  101. Buck, what you are telling us cannot possibly be true. Everyone is the recipient of unwanted passes from time to time, but no one – not even a Brad Pitt – is subject to the kind of onslaught you describe. My father was a plumber and a very good looking man and not one of his women customers ever made overtures to him. He never had to fight his way out of a house.

    Most flirtation is carried on subtly because people don’t like rejection. Sometimes it is so subtle that the other person doesn’t pick up on it, as the study cited by Daisy shows. Most women who might want a relationship with you will let you know they are interested and if you don’t respond, they will assume they aren’t your type or you are involved with someone. They don’t make a scene and accuse you of being gay; that would be embarrassing.

    And you have such anger and contempt towards women. It is not normal. Most men and women get along just fine with the opposite sex. A desire to control and dominate is not an issue in most marriages. Most couples are interested in loving cooperation. Of course there are men and women who are controlling or abusive but they are in the minority.

    I know you think that women are always after you sexually but this just cannot be true. This plus your ugly attitude towards women suggests to me that you would benefit by seeing a therapist. I know you are reading this and objecting but you are not happy with your life and isn’t that what is important to you? Whatever the problem is, seeing someone can help clarify your thinking and help you develop a better life strategy. Please consider it. Your life can be so much better.

    Like

  102. Marsha said,

    Buck, what you are telling us cannot possibly be true. Everyone is the recipient of unwanted passes from time to time, but no one – not even a Brad Pitt – is subject to the kind of onslaught you describe.

    It’s downright comical sounding.

    Other than teen aged girls from the 1950s to the ’60s or ’70s who went hysterical – bouts of screaming and crying – for Elvis, the Beatles, and one or two other rock bands, I’m hard pressed to think of a series of women who would fixate on a “regular Joe” the way Buck was describing.

    It reminds me of the opening scene from “Austin Powers” where the ladies chase Austin around the streets of London, screaming his name, and he has to assume fake disguises and hide in phone booths to escape his legions of admiring female admirers – you can see it here:
    Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery Opening
    (link is to a video on you tube)

    Like

  103. “I have a hunch Diane will be pleased with your comment, Lydia 🙂

    Yes, he looks far too young to be telling us how to live out our manhood/womanhood.”

    Squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee squee.

    Yeah…would love to ask Owen why he chose the belly dancing association as his example to use on the Huckabee show. It speaks volumes of squee.

    Like

  104. Something else that I meant to bring up earlier but forgot.

    I’m fairly sure that in a post above Buck said that Wartburg Watch is “anti authority” and “anti man,” particularly in regards to the fact that they report on abusive churches and abusive preachers.

    (I might be mistaken about that, but I’m pretty sure he made a comment along those lines. I tried to find the post but there are so many I can’t find the specific post or quote.)

    If my memory serves correctly, and he said that the ladies at TWW are “anti authority,” he’s too concerned about authority.

    Yet in other posts, he has said he does not care about authority, or does not define gender comp as encompassing authority. If that is so, why would he care if some ladies at a blog are “anti authority?”

    (Jesus said his followers should not seek authority over one another. My position is that since men in the church – not all, but a lot within certain denominations – are obsessed with hierarchy and authority, women should have equal authority.)

    This is also another situation where he’s blaming egalitarians, women, and/or feminism for a situation that was created by men and/or sexism / gender complementarians.

    Deb and Dee at TWW choose to focus on abuse in Neo Calvinist, Southern Baptist, and conservative evangelical churches (and sometimes groups with other theological views, such as IFBs, arminians, etc), and these churches do not allow women to preach and lead.

    Only men are allowed, by men, of these denominations to preach…. so…

    If you want to see Deb and Dee at TWW (or I’d wager, Julie Anne at this blog), to report on abuse by women preachers, you will need to convince Neo Calvinists, IFBs, Southern Baptists, and conservative evangelicals to allow women to preach in the first place.

    Then, when and if a woman preacher gets caught covering up abuse, engaging in it, or supporting it, I know Deb and Dee would report on that (and Julie Anne probably would too).

    Currently, women are frozen out from teaching, leading, and preaching positions in these churches by men (and also by some women who unfortunately who have bought into gender complementarianism), which leaves only male leaders and preachers.

    Deb and Dee cannot criticize what does not exist (i.e., women preachers in Southern Baptist churches, for instance; there is no such creature, abusive or non abusive).

    Like

  105. And P.S.
    Also, how “anti man” are Deb and Dee when they (and/or some of their participants at TWW blog), have in the past also criticized women pretty strongly, such as that CBMW lady – what is her name, Dorothy Patterson? – the token lady on CBMW.

    Deb and Dee once wrote a post or two strongly critical of Christian conference speaker and book author Beth Moore.

    At this blog, Julie Anne devoted a whole blog post criticizing the behavior of some patriarchy-supporting women (I forgot their names). I think this was the post:

    Did Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Pass the Duck Test on Patriarchy?
    -There you go, a post where the views of actions of two women were being criticized.

    Even Buck noted above in this thread that Dorothy of CBMW has been criticized by some here and some folks at TWW.

    How can he claim everyone here or at TWW is “anti man” when he acknowledges that some women (their views or behavior, at least) have also been criticized?

    Like

  106. “Yeah…would love to ask Owen why he chose the belly dancing association as his example to use on the Huckabee show. It speaks volumes of squee.”

    Because as you know the anti belly dancing zealot at Bowdoin will demand to be accepted to the belly dancing assocation. (sign)

    I did read up a bit on Bowdoin’s new policy and it IS stupid from my pov. I mean would the student PETA group have to accept the “NRA gun toting loves to hunt” student? The world has gone mad.

    Like

  107. Marsha,

    You had said: “Everyone is the recipient of unwanted passes from time to time, but no one – not even a Brad Pitt – is subject to the kind of onslaught you describe.”

    My response: I used to work with a female civilian co-worker who always had us laughing.  She was always making jokes.  In the military, we would have to go thru an annual Sexual Harassment Training.  After the class, she said the following:

    Sexual Harassment will not be reported, but will be graded!!

    Ed

    ________________________________

    Like

  108. On the “JD Hall and Me” thread at TWW, Buck Thornton showed up and left a couple of posts about CBMW, complementarianism, and related subjects.

    Here are links to his posts there:
    Buck Thornton CANADA on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 05:39 PM

    Some of the commenters here made some really vile comments about her, that this well known woman of ministry did not count as she was wealthy, and that she should “go back to her mansion.
    …I have not commented here since due to the vileness and unbiblical attitudes on this site. This site is a hate mongering site and is tearing down the church rather than building it up.

    Buck Thornton CANADA on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 05:57 PM said:

    Last night, I pointed out to Buck T. in a reply at the bottom of that TWW thread, he later mocked me here on this blog for being unmarried (unless I am confusing him with another poster, but I’m pretty sure it was him).

    I don’t have the patience to go through each and every post in this thread and the several that came after, but I am pretty sure that after this thread, in one that came a day (or more) later, I once again mentioned being single and some of the issues being single creates one when is (or was) a Christian.

    It was then that Buck made some kind of jab in that newer thread at my expense for being single. I don’t remember his exact comment, or which thread it was on, but it was a little snarky.

    So I find it funny that Buck T. is over at TWW a few days ago claiming that Dee and TWW folks were supposedly saying “vile” things about complementarians, including unmarried gender comp author Nancy DeMoss.

    It seems that in Buck Thornton’s view, Christian gender complementarians should be off-limits to criticism, but it’s totally acceptable to ridicule non-complementarian unmarried women, such as myself.

    How Buck Thornton can ridicule me for being single, yet criticize TWWians for supposedly insulting a gender complementarian supporting single woman (ie DeMoss) for being single is a bit of a double standard.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s